손해배상(기)
The judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below among the part against the plaintiff A.
The reasons for this part of this Court’s liability for damages are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s work process is insufficient to reverse the first instance judgment that caused the fall of the compression of wastes; and (b) it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment; (c) thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of compensation, each item of the Schedule for Calculation of Compensation Amount for Attached Damage shall be the same as that of the corresponding item, and the period of convenience shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded.
The current value calculation at the time of the accident shall be governed by the fractional discount law that deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month.
In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.
[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 11, Eul evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 1 through 5, the result of the court of first instance's commission of physical appraisal to the North Korean University Hospital, the result of the court of first instance's inquiry about the G hospital of the court of first instance, as a result of this court's entrustment of the appraisal to the North Korean University Hospital, the result of this court's entrustment of the appraisal to the North Korean University Hospital, the purport of the entire pleadings, 1) the personal information No. 1) in the column for the calculation of damages
2) The Defendant asserts that, with respect to a person engaged in a straight station whose main work is physical labor, he/she may operate until he/she reaches 60 years of age in light of the empirical rule, and that, in light of the health conditions of Plaintiff A, such as urology, he/she shall be deemed 60 years of age.
With regard to this, a person who provides health care, a person who provides general physical labor, or a person who mainly lives with physical labor may operate until the age of 65, except in extenuating circumstances.
It is reasonable to view that it is in accordance with the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da248909 decided February 21, 2019).